Or he can cross the border into Pakistan and set up a huge base with 100 computers for LAN games and 400 sheep on treadmills to provide electicity and air conditioning 5miles away from a goverment building or army camp and no one would ever know he was there.

I gotta say, in the console market, over the past MANY YEARS, developer's have been able to incrementally increase performance by code optimization.

It's pretty obvious by the encoding benchmarks that there's really alot of math power in Bulldozer. You could potentially say it's just under-utilized. It's not like it's really all that bad. It's just a little too ahead of it's time is all. Can I guarantee developer's will take advantage of that math power? Nope.

And those three games are ones that kind of show that very well. And that's why I say that a lot of the reviews seem biased, because not one seems to look to highlight where Bulldozer is a success, and most seem focused on disappointment.

I gotta say, in the console market, over the past MANY YEARS, developer's have been able to incrementally increase performance by code optimization.

It's pretty obvious by the encoding benchmarks that there's really alot of math power in Bulldozer. You could potentially say it's just under-utilized. It's not like it's really all that bad. It's just a little too ahead of it's time is all. Can I guarantee developer's will take advantage of that math power? Nope.

And those three games are ones that kind of show that very well. And that's why I say that a lot of the reviews seem biased, because not one seems to look to highlight where Bulldozer is a success, and most seem focused on disappointment.

I gotta say, in the console market, over the past MANY YEARS, developer's have been able to incrementally increase performance by code optimization.

It's pretty obvious by the encoding benchmarks that there's really alot of math power in Bulldozer. You could potentially say it's just under-utilized. It's not like it's really all that bad. It's just a little too ahead of it's time is all. Can I guarantee developer's will take advantage of that math power? Nope.

And those three games are ones that kind of show that very well. And that's why I say that a lot of the reviews seem biased, because not one seems to look to highlight where Bulldozer is a success, and most seem focused on disappointment.

The thing is though, they hyped it way to much already, its already getting announced. They def see every single review on the net, yet most of them are negative.

There AMD, and that is no joke, they should have known about the performance numbers, THERE is no way the could not have known!!!! They tested, they marketed way to extremely and even had some overclocking Guinness record, and by then they new there performance numbers. There is no way this came out of the blue, its impossible with that infrastructure. Impossible.

There is not an excuse that matter's when it come's to the overall number's everybody is seeing. Not optimized is so much bullshit its beyond untrue, they practically guarantied an ENTHUSIAST PRODUCT, they even market it with a HD 6990!!!!!

No ethical way I can see for this seriously being a mistake, or some weird ass optimization problem, AMD knew all along, and they might keep it that way anyways.
There is no excuse for it to be under optimized, AMD knew simple as that. It's there main market and has been sense the 1970's.

So what make's anybody think that its just under optimized yet, they have been pumping out processor's on every window's platforms for a while. There is just no excuse....

The thing is though, they hyped it way to much already, its already getting announced. They def see every single review on the net, yet most of them are negative.

There AMD, and that is no joke, they should have known about the performance numbers, THERE is no way the could not have known!!!! They tested, they marketed way to extremely and even had some overclocking Guinness record, and by then they new there performance numbers. There is no way this came out of the blue, its impossible with that infrastructure. Impossible.

There is not an excuse that matter's when it come's to the overall number's everybody is seeing. Not optimized is so much bullshit its beyond untrue, they practically guarantied an ENTHUSIAST PRODUCT, they even market it with a HD 6990!!!!!

No ethical way I can see for this seriously being a mistake, or some weird ass optimization problem, AMD knew all along, and they might keep it that way anyways.
There is no excuse for it to be under optimized, AMD knew simple as that. It's there main market and has been sense the 1970's.

So what make's anybody think that its just under optimized yet, they have been pumping out processor's on every window's platforms for a while. There is just no excuse....

I cannot excuse some of the marketing. I've been complaining about it for a long time now. There are a lot of good ideas there, they are all just poorly executed.

There's a reason companies do not comment about unreleased products, and yes, AMD very much broke that this time. But, officially, they did an effective job of marketing from the business perspective, because literally every aspect of Bulldozer is something I personally expected. The power consumption, clocking, and performance, are all exactly where expected.

The marketing to the enthusiast failed. The Guinness thing should not have been mentioned except at launch. The FX moniker should have been explained, yet, if look back through Bulldozer posts..I knew what FX meant, but many many others didn't.

I do not understand, why, when adding two cores, and 6 cores weren't used to begin with, that peopel thought that magically there would be more performance. When the cores are used effectively, the 8150 does pull ahead considerably.

The fact these chips use such a high voltage while in max turbo mode, yet live on, no problem, is pretty incredible. The fact they can push 300++ watts through that small of a process is quite amazing, and is part of the reason that things like 8 GHz clocks are possible.

To be completely honest, I don't really see Bulldozer as a failure at all, and frankly, anyone claiming it is, really, is still buying into the hype, because literally everyone is buying into these reviews, and the negative outlook. Clearly there are issues when they are using ES samples for reviews. Why are there so few retail samples?

Nobody gets it. And I'm not about to explain things when it's so bloody obvious.

I cannot excuse some of the marketing. I've been complaining about it for a long time now. There are a lot of good ideas there, they are all just poorly executed.

There's a reason companies do not comment about unreleased products, and yes, AMD very much broke that this time. But, officially, they did an effective job of marketing from the business perspective, because literally every aspect of Bulldozer is something I personally expected. The power consumption, clocking, and performance, are all exactly where expected.

The marketing to the enthusiast failed. The Guinness thing should not have been mentioned except at launch. The FX moniker should have been explained, yet, if look back through Bulldozer posts..I knew what FX meant, but many many others didn't.

I do not understand, why, when adding two cores, and 6 cores weren't used to begin with, that peopel thought that magically there would be more performance. When the cores are used effectively, the 8150 does pull ahead considerably.

The fact these chips use such a high voltage while in max turbo mode, yet live on, no problem, is pretty incredible. The fact they can push 300++ watts through that small of a process is quite amazing, and is part of the reason that things like 8 GHz clocks are possible.

To be completely honest, I don't really see Bulldozer as a failure at all, and frankly, anyone claiming it is, really, is still buying into the hype, because literally everyone is buying into these reviews, and the negative outlook. Clearly there are issues when they are using ES samples for reviews. Why are there so few retail samples?

Nobody gets it. And I'm not about to explain things when it's so bloody obvious.

Arguably Bulldozer is the better overall CPU. Granted single threaded performance is poor and makes it perhaps a sceptical choice without a price drop. However in multithreaded applications the Bulldozer often pulls ahead of the i7 Bloomfield and i5 2500K and keeps up with the i7 2600K with ease.

I guess AMD are guilty of releasing the CPU too early. Perhaps if they waited a year or two, say early 2013 to mid 2014 software developers would have moved along with the times to multithreaded coding and results would sway towards AMD's new architecture.

In a away I sort of blame software developers too for holding back current hardware by dragging their feet with multithreaded coding.

Edit:

by cadaveca said:

Clearly there are issues when they are using ES samples for reviews. Why are there so few retail samples

Are you really gonna beleive a company that makes millions of chips couldn't find 50 single retail samples to hand out to reviewers when they said ES chips and retail are different?

And that is all.

Official reviews are equpped with a Crosshair 5 motherboards, a retail chip in the tin, a belt buckle, and a watercooler. If there are not pictures of all of these things, then the review should be ignored.

If the watercooler is NOT used, then the review is invalid, IMHO. If the review uses an ES chip, it is INVALID. I could add several more criteria here, but those two are enough.

It fights with the GTX 570s performance plus as mentioned the extra VRAM was a plus. Granted im running at 1080p, but it's never bad to have more of everything, you never know when you'll start running into games that will eat it all up.

I was thinking about getting a 8 core BD chip but it just wasn't worth the cost considering my overclocked X6 1055T pretty much in the same arena as it for now.

I'm also expecting the 6970's power consumption and heat output will be better then my current 470, Fermi runs hot as everybody has come to expect.

How can we be sure ES were used in reviews. I read through most of the literature from Tomhshardware, Techspot, Hardware Heaven etc and none of the journalists mention only having Engineering samples available.

Granted some of the literal was extremely long, maybe my eyes missed the parts where they mentioned having ES only.

It fights with the GTX 570s performance plus as mentioned the extra VRAM was a plus. Granted im running at 1080p, but it's never bad to have more of everything, you never know when you'll start running into games that will eat it all up.

I was thinking about getting a 8 core BD chip but it just wasn't worth the cost considering my overclocked X6 1055T pretty much in the same arena as it for now.

I'm also expecting the 6970's power consumption and heat output will be better then my current 470, Fermi runs hot as everybody has come to expect.

Yeah, I used to run a GTX 470 last year for a month or two. It was a good card. The only reason I started buying 6950's was boredom really. I started reading about the unlocking and wanted eyefinity, etc so I went for it.

The 470 was a great card though. The heat and power was exaggerated a bit by some people, although it is a bit on the warm side. The 6950/6970 reference gets warm too on occasion, and is equally loud. It will outperform the 470 for sure though.

The 6970 is a great card. I'm running two myself, in eyefinity config with a 4th monitor for reading documents when I need it. Best setup evar.

How can we be sure ES were used in reviews. I read through most of the literature from Tomhshardware, Techspot, Hardware Heaven etc and none of the journalists mention only having Engineering samples available.

Granted some of the literal was extremely long, maybe my eyes missed the parts where they mentioned having ES only.

If there is no CPU-Z, look for them using the provided watercooler, and for them using the ASUS Crosshair V motherboard. NO Crosshair 5 is an immediate disqualification, in my books, unless they somehow confirm that they have a retail chip.